Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
I think it's more a question of what the guys on the other side were shooting with?
The Mexican War is fought, essentially, with the same weapons that the French and Prussians and most of the English fought with at Waterloo. Tactics, formations, maneuvers are all essentially the same, and the Americans essentially win because of their use of artillery and the bayonet, executed by high-quality troops in the small Army. There aren't enough percussion-capped weapons and/or rifles on the fields of battle to drastically change anything. I am not disputing you on the qualities of individual weapons; I am pointing out that it is mass deployment of the weapons that makes the system change.
That changes very rapidly in the late 1850s and 1860s, both in America and in Europe. With the changes in the mass of weapons deployed comes the major shift in the tactical environment.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
the British army would have serious problems. Logistically, it would have to bring much supplies from Great Britain, in wooden supply ships, facing monitors on eastern U.S. and Canadian waters.
The U.S. had the industrial capacity to bring troops and supplies to and into Canada, by rail and steamboat.
Of course, the British never really considered entering the war. It was all myth created by the Confederacy and southerners.
The British Foreign Office was well aware the Confederacy had no suitable navy. The British clearly saw how the U.S. would use its industrial superiority and its inland navy, early in the war. The British questioned early in the war, the ability of the Confederacy to control its territory near the Mississippi and Ohio River.
The British, great exporters to the southern states before the war, probably had as much intelligence on the weaknesses of the Confederate military system, as Washington had.
the British army would have serious problems. Logistically, it would have to bring much supplies from Great Britain, in wooden supply ships, facing monitors on eastern U.S. and Canadian waters.
The U.S. had the industrial capacity to bring troops and supplies to and into Canada, by rail and steamboat.
There weren't that many Monitors, and they weren't really capable of fighting in open waters. The ******** turret is really, really badly designed, you have to open the ship to the sea to turn it. Plus the Monitors were really poor fighting units, their Coefficient of Fighting Efficiency are all below 1 (for comparison, Warrior is 45).
Any raiding will be done by wooden steam cruisers, of which the US has about a dozen useful examples.
Quote:
Of course, the British never really considered entering the war. It was all myth created by the Confederacy and southerners.
The British Foreign Office was well aware the Confederacy had no suitable navy. The British clearly saw how the U.S. would use its industrial superiority and its inland navy, early in the war. The British questioned early in the war, the ability of the Confederacy to control its territory near the Mississippi and Ohio River.
The British, great exporters to the southern states before the war, probably had as much intelligence on the weaknesses of the Confederate military system, as Washington had.
Nope, they got so far as to issue Conditional War Orders to commanders in the NA&WI theatre, Dunlop was even under orders to strike the blockaders at Galveston unless a recall was sent in Jan 62.
The British, and indeed all Europeans, believed the CSA was winning until late 1863.
I'd put my money on any American army against an equal sized European army. Why? The Europeans including the Prussians still used linear tactics. While they weren't shoulder to shoulder, they manuevered on the battlefield that way. Second, they weren't given to dig in as readily (or eagerly) as an American army would in 1864 (both Union and Confederate in Virginia and the midwest eagerly dug in by then). Another huge factor is that by early 1864, most soldiers were veterans (except for the Union bounty-jumpers who were very unreliable) and very experienced. The British army was experienced (Crimean War) as were the Prussians (Second Schleswig War of 1864, Austro-Prussian War 1866). However, Continental and British cavalry tactics were obsolete (still had sabre charges and lancers) and would have been mowed down by American cannons and infantry fire (presumably all breechloaders by 1866). Finally, we had a navy second to none in 1865. We had more ironclads and I doubt if the ironclad HMS Warrior or the French Gloire could stand up to our monitors. One last thing, our toilets on the monitors were all flush toilets. The HMS Warrior had only one flush toilet and that was in the Captain's quarters. I've been aboard her years ago.
I'd put my money on any American army against an equal sized European army. Why? The Europeans including the Prussians still used linear tactics. While they weren't shoulder to shoulder, they manuevered on the battlefield that way.
Nope, most European armies had some fairly sophisticated tactical doctrines. It was the American armies that were stuck in a Frederickian linear nightmare. As Muir, amongst others, points out, Frederickian tactics are a good way to get a slogging killing match, but only reach decisions when one side gets the gusto to close the distance to bayonetpoint.
Quote:
Second, they weren't given to dig in as readily (or eagerly) as an American army would in 1864 (both Union and Confederate in Virginia and the midwest eagerly dug in by then).
Prussia, maybe not (and they suffered for it in 1864), but the British considered the digging up totally inadequate. The extensive trenchworks of late 1864 were considered hasty trenchworks by the British.
Quote:
Another huge factor is that by early 1864, most soldiers were veterans (except for the Union bounty-jumpers who were very unreliable) and very experienced.
The peek of both sides fighting efficiency was mid -1863. By 1864 the quality of the armies was decaying, hence the settling into prolonged sieges.
Quote:
However, Continental and British cavalry tactics were obsolete (still had sabre charges and lancers) and would have been mowed down by American cannons and infantry fire (presumably all breechloaders by 1866).
Yet, cavalry continued to operate effectively against much greater firepower a long time after the ACW. The fact is battlefield cavalry was as relevant as it ever was, but some theorist had decided it was obsolete, despite the demonstratable fact it wasn't.
Quote:
Finally, we had a navy second to none in 1865. We had more ironclads and I doubt if the ironclad HMS Warrior or the French Gloire could stand up to our monitors. One last thing, our toilets on the monitors were all flush toilets. The HMS Warrior had only one flush toilet and that was in the Captain's quarters. I've been aboard her years ago.
The simple fact is Monitors 2 guns can't hurt Warrior. Warriors 40 guns can smash the sandridden iron case of Monitor to pieces with impunity.
The simple fact is Monitors 2 guns can't hurt Warrior. Warriors 40 guns can smash the sandridden iron case of Monitor to pieces with impunity.
True enough. Warrior and Black Prince would be able to take any single US ironclad with ease in the open sea. But they'd have a great deal of trouble in shallow waters, particularly against groups of US ironclads.
Another simple fact is that there was no dock in the Western Hemisphere that could take them; there were, IIRR, only two in the world and both were in England. Any battle damage of more than a minor nature could easily mean they had to return to England for repairs.
The French ironclads were less seaworthy as well as less powerful and less well-armored than the English ones.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Yet, cavalry continued to operate effectively against much greater firepower a long time after the ACW. The fact is battlefield cavalry was as relevant as it ever was, but some theorist had decided it was obsolete, despite the demonstratable fact it wasn't.
The overwhelming opinion of most cavalrymen in Europe was in favor of the traditional employment.
After the Franco-Prussian War, the Prussian chief of cavalry tried to put some emphasis on dismounted combat training; he was shouted down by the traditionalists, who claimed they could not maintain the quality and precision needed for mounted combat if they wasted time on dismounted training.
The only theorists in traditional militaries arguing for "mounted-infantry" style came from the British. They were led by men who had fought in far-off places like New Zealand and Canada, and a decided minority
In the 1870s, the Canadian became the pre-eminent cavalry theorist/historian in the world after winning the Russian Grand Duke's prize for a new book on cavalry. He was still regarded as the leader on the eve of WWI, and said he'd seen nothing new developed in the last 40 years. The Russians, not too surprisingly, became the most like US Civil War cavalry, as can be seen in their 1877 war against the Turks.
Perhaps the most insightful look at this can be found in von Moltke's instructions to his generals following the 1866 Austro-Prussian War. This was in the form of a General Staff study of the war, and detailed comments on what was needed for the coming war with France. More aggressive artillery and a more disciplined cavalry come to the fore).
He clearly appreciates the improvements in firepower (a theme of his since 1859), but realizes he still needs cavalry in the traditional role on the battlefield. So there is an emphasis on use of cover, not exposing the troops to unnecessary fiire, etc. -- but the message is that they still need to be used for battlefield charges and there are times when they will just have to take the casualties to be in position where they can be used if an opportunity arises.
By 1877, though, the Russian Cossacks (no longer irregulars, but a disciplined, uniformed, well-trained force, one regiment attached permanently to each Corps) are trained to fight dismounted, issued bayonets for their rifles, and have an organic sapper unit attached. The sapper unit came about because it was realized that the weakness of ACW cavalry raids was an inability of most (i.e., the non-Forrest ones) to destroy things when they couldn't burn them. A deep-penetration raid by the Cossacks is sometimes given as the reason the Russians won the 1877 war with the Turks; in it, the Cossacks dismounted and stormed a key town with the bayonet.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I do believe that most nations evolve in their warfare as they become involved in them.
I vaguely remember a photograph of a Polish Cavalry Charge into a German attack with modern weapons in the beginnings of World War I, when Germany invaded Poland. Polish Cavalry were slaughtered within minutes.
The art of warfare never ends, perfecting what is present in the arsenals, problem solving and inventing comes to mind. War makes it necessary to make changes and improve.
Guns/Rifles have evolved quickly over history --
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
I do believe that most nations evolve in their warfare as they become involved in them.
I vaguely remember a photograph of a Polish Cavalry Charge into a German attack with modern weapons in the beginnings of World War I, when Germany invaded Poland. Polish Cavalry were slaughtered within minutes.
The art of warfare never ends, perfecting what is present in the arsenals, problem solving and inventing comes to mind. War makes it necessary to make changes and improve.
Guns/Rifles have evolved quickly over history --
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Good memory; that's in 1939, though. About the same time the Russians fought the Japanese out near Mongolia; there's a cavalry on cavalry incident there. Russian Cossacks had just been issued lances before the charge. It was no longer a traditional weapon for them, so they didn't know what to do with them. They charged, but they used the lances, in effect, as quarterstaves, knocking the Japanese from the saddle left and right.
You can also find mass charges by Russian cavalry during WWII, particularly near Moscow in 1941-42. Plus there is a US mounted unit in the Philippines when the war started, the 26th, I think.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I do believe that most nations evolve in their warfare as they become involved in them.
I vaguely remember a photograph of a Polish Cavalry Charge into a German attack with modern weapons in the beginnings of World War I, when Germany invaded Poland. Polish Cavalry were slaughtered within minutes.
The art of warfare never ends, perfecting what is present in the arsenals, problem solving and inventing comes to mind. War makes it necessary to make changes and improve.
Guns/Rifles have evolved quickly over history --
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
There was a recent article in one of the mags I read - I think it was Military History Quaterly - which talked about the persistant myth of the Polish Cavalry charging panzers. While there are pictures of Polish Cavalry with lances immediately prior to WWII, they did not actually use lances in battle. They actually fought as mounted infantry and where the elite troops of the Polish army. In fact, there are German comuniques which bemoan the fact that the Polish cavalry was bedeviling the German units. Indeed, there was apparently one incident where Polish cavalry made a mounted charge against tanks, but this was to achieve a breakout when surrounded. Give the Poles credit, their cavalry were crack troops who dealt some severe (yet ultimately futile) blows to the invading Germans.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
